Caveman, George is also under indictment for using aircraft to guide hunters to game. I don't know how many counts it is for sure but I think it's 2 or 3. That's the reason why the lawsuits against Arizona Fish & Game were filed under the names of one of his guides and his wife.

I've also heard stories on other forums about USO giudes running people off of public land claiming leases with exclusive hunting rights that didn't exist and claiming public land was private land.

Hell, they've done worse than that. They've put up barricades on roads, told people AZFG had closed sections, and marked public land as private. They are basically a group of greedy money hungry individuals who have little or no concern for the future of hunting.

Great citation by the late Justice Blackmun (of roe vs wade fame for those who don't know) and Burger. Carefully read, it shows that there is not a resoundingly clear definition of whether a state "owns" the game for residents or whether it is held in trust for all U.S. citizens. It even cites the legal precedence that I mentioned above for why USO won in the 9th circuit.

Given the opinions of Burger and Blackmun it is clear to me that AZ would not stand a good chance on appeal to the supreme court. I may have to look up the dissenting opinions on the MT case some time.

I understand why USO won in the 9th circuit. It is my opinion that game is not "owned" by the state, that this is anachronistic as Burger puts it. In other words who owns what is more based on historical consideration than a clear logical definition. As I said before, I think the laymen opinion would be that game is owned by all U.S. citizens. This isn't the question in this case, but it is an underlying issue.

I don't have blinders on. I got the gist of where you think things are going with the USO win. I just don't agree that it is a likely outcome. In the letter you cite from USO, he says "If 30% NR's apply then 30% get tags". That's great George, but it is unlikely.

The court agrees that AZ's practices were unconstitutional, but it did not say that it must do what George says in order to be constitutional. If you haven't already, please read the judges findings, available here:

Its under opinions, MONTOYA V MANNING, 8/20/02. I'd link, but it is a PDF that is buried in URL junk.

I'll quote a key part Broomfield says (typos are my fault):

"We do not foreclose the possibility that the goal of ensuring a state's citizen's access to recreational opportunities may justify limited consideration of residency in the allocation of hunting tags in some circumstances. Whether there is a need for such considerations for hunting in Arizona turns on the questions of fact not appropriate for the resolution by this court. It is hardly clear that Arizonans need preferences in order to enjoy hunting in their state. The Statement accompanying the promulgation of the regulations explained that, without the cap or bonus point system, "most big game hunts ... experience nonresident pressure of below 5%" and that Arizonans received over 80% of the hunting tags issued for nearly every hunt for bull elk statewide and for antlered deer north of the Colorado River. A factfinder reasonably could conclude from this evidence that Arizona's regulation was
designed to respond to political pressure from the Department's constituency, not to any actual need of Arizonans for more hunting opportunities".

This ruling does not give the opinion that if "70% NR's apply 70% get tags" or that such as system must be put in place. Broomfield leaves the door open that states can limit NR's if residents are not being assured "recreational opportunities".

Now about USO's criminal history/indictments and other mud slinging (deserved or otherwise) at USO. You guys should look up the term ad hominem attack.

You guys are entitled to your opinion, but I can see through the legal mumbo jumbo. What no one can clearly answer is what happens if, just for arguements sake, 70% of the applicants are non-res? See they basically said you can't cap at 10%. So where do they cap and how is it determined? I know in my state odds are much more difficult for non-res's than residents (about 3 times as much) and its about a 10% here to. So what Utah is doing is now "illegal" in some parts of the country. So how would my state get in line with the ruling?

The problem is you are looking at the exact verbage of the ruling and not thinking of the future implications of the ruling. You are lacking the foresight to see where it's going. You have the right to feel how you feel and I have my opinion.

Think of it like this. The ruling said you can't have a 10% cap, devise a new plan. Think like a lawyer now. You think saying ok lets have a 15% cap is going to satisfy the court. And without a cap how can you seperate res's from non-res's in the draw? The court did not say, "you have to do this or that." That is true but have the foresight to see what will satisfy the court based on it's ruling. Once you see that you'll see what we are so worried about.

The ruling also said Arizona residents should have no trouble giving out the majority of the tags to residents minus a cap system. I very much beg to differ. The reason why the court sees it that way is because many choose not apply in todays environment because of tough odds. If word gets out that it's much easier to get a trophy bull elk tag in Arizona I believe that applications would start pouring in. That trend would happen all over the West. I've read on other forums there are lots of guys who are drewling over this ruling and what it could mean. Think about it. The porpulation density in the West is very low compared to the East. Well off Easterners anywhere from Colorado East will start pouring into our draws.

It looks like Arizona sees the implications of the court ruling the same as I do. That is that it threatens resident huning as we know it. Here is an article posted on thier website about how they are going to satisfy the court ruling. As you'll see while reading the article Arizona will probably end up being able to protect resident hunting rights with lots more restrictions. You guys that think what USO has done is good, are nuts!!!!

"The Arizona Game and Fish Commission on Aug. 14 analyzed a list of more than 20 ideas to protect resident hunting opportunities. The action came in response to a federal court ruling declaring unconstitutional Arizona's 10-percent cap on nonresident applicants for certain big game species.

The commission has directed the Game and Fish Department to begin drafting rule language and collecting public comment on nine of the 20 alternatives.

Rule making for the changes is now on a fast-track so the department can implement the changes by April of next year, when the commission adopts big game hunt orders for the 2005-06 hunting season.

As part of that rule process, the department will conduct public meetings starting this week to collect input on the nine alternatives selected.

* Award additional bonus points for continuous support. Also referred to as "loyalty points," these points would be awarded to people who have been applying for big game hunts or buying licenses consecutively for a designated period of time, for example, for five years.

* Award a conservation bonus point to individuals who participate in wildlife work projects. There are several variations of this proposal and the department has been directed to consolidate and refine a final proposal for public input.

* Charge up front for applications over the Internet, using electronic funds transfers instead of credit cards, or do away with the online application process altogether.

* Increase license and permit fees, which would require legislation.

* Require all big game drawing applicants to purchase a hunting license.

* Increase the draw application fees. This would require legislation.

* Increase the bonus point pass percentage from 10 percent to 20 percent, which would mean setting aside 20 percent of big game permits for individuals with the most bonus points.

* Create a nonresident set-aside based on capped percentages and conduct a separate nonresident draw for these tags.

* Create commercial and noncommercial big game tags, with 90 percent of the tags designated as noncommercial, available only to residents, and ten percent as commercial, available equally to residents and nonresidents. Another version of this proposal would change the law to completely eliminate commercialization of wildlife to permit reinstatement of the 10 percent nonresident cap.

The department is also accepting public comment on the alternatives via its Web site, azgfd.com. To access the submission form, look under "What's New."

At the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Game and Fish Commission, Sept. 17-18 in Safford, commission members will be poised to approve the rule making needed to implement some or all of the alternatives and is also expected to give the department direction on pursuing legislation for the same purpose."

That's right, you won a landmark decision in your Arizona case (Montoya vs. Manning) after nearly 7 years of litigation that has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and back. Read the enclosed PRESS RELEASE for the latest good news. The gist of it is: nonresidents are now going to be treated the same as residents in the distribution of the quality hunting tags, the quota in Arizona is gone on elk and deer. The wildlife belongs to all of us equally and now the courts have struck down the discrimination against nonresident hunters. Our chances of drawing these tags will be increasing to the same as the residents for elk and deer, bighorn quotas will be gone by next year. This year in fact, Arizona gave nearly 750 additional tags to nonresidents who were rejected because of the quotas. Many of you drew Arizona tags this year because of winning this lawsuit.

As far as other States, Nevada is going to make their decision to either fight the Courts ruling or to get rid of their illegal quotas this coming Saturday. Montana has been notified of our win and we have asked them to follow the 9th Circuit decision, we have not heard of any scheduled hearings as yet. If these States decide to fight, then not only will they be facing little chance of winning, but also a large class action damage claim.

It has been a long hard struggle for all of us with a lot of emotional ups and downs along the way. USO has been proud to have been an instrumental part of righting this growing wrong. Now we need your help, not with money, but with a little of your time. The angry residents of Arizona do not realize that is was you, the nonresident, who was the driving force of this lawsuit. They do not realize that it was your financial and emotional backing that filed and supported this successful lawsuit. They believe it was all USO's doing and are expressing their anger towards USO and our sponsors. USO understands, but our sponsors are getting emails and letters from a few uneducated Arizona residents expressing rage at the outcome of our lawsuit and threatening them with all sorts of retaliation, mostly wanting to boycott their products. We need you to notify the Sponsors of our television show "Real Hunting Adventures" to let them know your appreciation for their support, not so much for their lawsuit support, but their general support of USO. Our show is one of the top 5 rated shows on the Outdoor Channel now, and with our sponsors and your support, we will be on top for a long time to come.

The one sponsor that is obviously missing is Bill Jordan's Realtree, because of the negative pressure placed upon them by these few uneducated residents, they have already decided not to sponsor USO at this time. As I am sure this makes us all angry that Realtree, who has been part of our family for over 10 years, would succumb to this small amount of negative pressure. I am asking that you send them an email or letter thanking them for their past USO support and ask them to reevaluate their position. Please do not threaten them as the residents have, we do not want to lower ourselves to this level at this time. Contact davidblanton@realtree.com or address of 1390 Box Circle, Columbus, GA 31907. We believe that once they understand the large nonresident support behind this effort, they will reconsider. We will keep you abreast of the situation.

All Draws Are Completed ….

All of the draws have now been completed, Arizona is always the last one and we now have those results. By the time you receive this note, all the successful applicants should be notified. We already have contacted all of the successful applicants from Kansas and New Mexico draws. If anyone is looking to go on a guaranteed private land hunt this year, give us a call now 800-845-9929 as we now have the hunt openings that these draws have created.

We are sorry if you were unsuccessful this year, we know the feeling of not drawing a good hunt. But the future is going to explode for the nonresident. The loss of the illegal quotas add percentages for you to draw in each state and substantially increase our chances of drawing when you get the additive effect of applying to multiple states, like most of you do. Now is the time to dramatically increase the number of applications you are having us apply, if you haven't already. These dream tags are within our reach.

Arizona's Elk Permit of a Lifetime Raffle

Below is an elk raffle ticket for a statewide elk any weapon permit good from Sept. 1 - Dec. 31, 2004. This is probably the most sought after elk tag in the world. It is transferable as well. According to Arizona regulations, no donation is required and you may get one raffle ticket by just sending it in the mail. Donations are taken @ 20$ each or 6 for $100. We believe it would be foolish for you to not send in one at least this one chance at a cost of a 37 cent stamp. Cut this from this letter, fill it out and send to the address on the bottom. If you decide to also donate $20 or more, make sure to photocopy and send on in for free as well. Deadline is August 12 in their offices, send it today … "

I hope this adds a little foresight to the implications of the ruling.

All of us, at one time or another have gone on a hunting trip and had what we call “Blue Bird” weather. Warm evenings and almost hot days. We hunt in our t-shirts and enjoy the sunshine. We are way up in the mountains and have a whole week to hunt. How could it get any better?
That is, until we score on that big buck or bull. We work to get it out of the field and skinned as quickly as possible to cool it down. But try as we might, we just can’t get...